With Contributory neglience, the victim also did something "wrong" and contributed to her own injury. Drivers A and B are in a car accident. Driver A sued. Turns out that while Driver B was speeding, Driver A ran a stop sign. Thus, Driver A's negligence contributed to her injuries.

Mitigation doesn't mean the victim necessarily did something "wrong" to bring about their injury, just that they failed to act to make their injury less serious. Drivers A and B are in an accident, Driver A sues again for personal injury. Turns out Driver A didn't do anything negligent, and Driver B was speeding. BUT Driver A is suing for $1 million dollars for permanent injuries. Turns out Driver A was injured on site, but refused medical treatment, thinking it was just a minor head bump. She went to the hospital the next day. Treatment the day of could have lessened the injuries. Thus, Driver A failed to mitigate the damages, causing them to be more serious than they had to be.

Contributory negligence essentially deals with the question of who caused the accident that caused the injury? Did the plainfiff do anything that could have caused her injury?

Mitigation deals with what happens after the accident. Could the plaintiff have acted to lessen her damages, but failed to do so?

Negligence is a TORT concept...don't know why you'd think it pertained to contract. Granted, I'm a first year, so I may be wrong. But I've never once heard of negligence spoken of in a contractual context.

Negligence is a TORT concept...don't know why you'd think it pertained to contract. Granted, I'm a first year, so I may be wrong. But I've never once heard of negligence spoken of in a contractual context.

Ditto. In fact, whenever someone in my class is tempted to say something along the lines of "well, it's his fault he got himself into this awful deal in the first place," our professor immediately cuts them off and says, "don't start talking about fault; this isn't torts class."

Since contract liability is stick liability, can we conclude that there is no conception of contributory negligence in contract disputes?

First, are you a 0L? If so, put down the books and step away from the computer. You are only confusing yourself needlessly.

It is "strict" liability not "stick" liability. As others have said, you are confusing two separate areas of law. We don't usually talk about negligence or strict liability in contract law. Tort law, on the other hand, is almost exclusively rooted in some form of negligence or otherwise strict liability that makes the actor liable for the results of their conduct.

The only context in which I have heard negligence mentioned within contract is when it deals with a misrepresentation of fact. You can make a negligent misrepresentation if you fail to disclose something that would be reasonable to disclose under the circumstances or otherwise are negligent when making statements of fact during the formation of a contract.

Even still, this is not the type of negligence that is protected under tort law, if for not other reason than the remedy for the negligence will be different under contract law. Instead of receiving damages in the form of money, the victim of the negligent misrepresentation would be able to avoid the contract, seek restitution, etc.

Negligence is a TORT concept...don't know why you'd think it pertained to contract. Granted, I'm a first year, so I may be wrong. But I've never once heard of negligence spoken of in a contractual context.

Ditto. In fact, whenever someone in my class is tempted to say something along the lines of "well, it's his fault he got himself into this awful deal in the first place," our professor immediately cuts them off and says, "don't start talking about fault; this isn't torts class."

Why cannot it happen that A's breach of Contract can also partly attribute to B's fault?

I really don't know what you're asking; maybe if you gave a more concrete example?

But generally, fault doesn't come into play in contracts, at least not so far as liability for breach is the issue. As Holmes argued (and his view has since become quite influential, and still is), liability in contract is utterly divorced from any principle of fault. We don't care if the party was morally blameworthy or innocent in breaching his contract: the simple fact of the matter is, he breached, he failed to perform, he didn't keep his promise, and now he's liable. It doesn't matter whether he failed to perform his promise due to events beyond his control: when you make a promise, you essentially say that X event shall come to pass, and if it does not, you shall have a claim against me for the value of that event coming to pass. It doesn't matter if X is a promise to deliver carrots at a certain place and time or a promise that it shall snow in July in Vancouver. Either way, if the promise is not performed/fulfilled, the promisee has a claim against you, whether keeping the promise was within your power or not. And don't forget that even with things that we commonly think of a within our power (like delivery of goods), sometimes we still fail to keep these promises through no moral failing of our own (the truck breaks down, the carrots are blighted, etc.). The law of contracts doesn't care: you're still liable, even if there was nothing you could have done, no precaution you could have taken, which would have made performance possible.

Since contract liability is stick liability, can we conclude that there is no conception of contributory negligence in contract disputes?

Although the answer is quite obvious, I will explain... If there is a contract dispute, the first question you need to ask is whether the aggrieved party's contributory negligence negated the mens rea material to an element of the offense. If the answer to that question is yes, then you must determine whether the contract touches and concerns the land. Because we are also dealing with strict liability, chances are the contract does touch and concern the land (Seeing as how only a rational basis test is applied). It is important to note, however, that the court can only hear this case if the claim for damages is above $75,000. Having said that, apply the usual Erie analysis to come up with the right answer. Wherefore, I pray that you are not an actual law student (Please excuse my lame attempt to incorporate Legal Writing).

Although you may be confused with my answer, take heart in the fact that your question made even less sense. If you are in fact a first year student, might I suggest dropping out? If you are a 0L might I suggest withdrawing your applications? Either alternative furthers the greatest good for the greatest number of people.